the peloton was clean for a few months after 1998 festina scandal...

[la.margna]

..but then there was a guy who started pushing it to the limits again...

well, at least that was more or less what we did hear from a few riders, right?

On cyclismag there's an interesting article by Portoleau about watt development over all the Tours during the last 20 years. If you don't understand french or google translate messes it up, just scroll down and look at the charts. A few pretty interesting ones.

http://www.cyclismag.com/article.php?sid=6000

This one above in particular shows the emergence of EPO and confirms the almost clean peleton in 1999... Thanks Lance for bringing the drugs back to the sport!

 

[saganftw]

well since we dont know real weight of a rider using 78kg can be confusing and lead to mistakes (correct me if im wrong)

 

[hrotha]

What's even more interesting is the effects of the introduction of blood testing in 1997 and of the 2006 post-Puerto scare, and that, contrary to what many people had reported, 2010 hasn't been particularly clean (rather the opposite).

Taken at face value, it also goes well with what was said in the Vaughters & Andreu IM chat.

 

[saganftw]

btw i just noticed that in original french article there is no refference to epo,in fact theres no reference to drugs at all...it just compares different years of TdF

 

[JRTinMA]

..but then there was a guy who started pushing it to the limits again...

well, at least that was more or less what we did hear from a few riders, right?

On cyclismag there's an interesting article by Portoleau about watt development over all the Tours during the last 20 years. If you don't understand french or google translate messes it up, just scroll down and look at the charts. A few pretty interesting ones.

http://www.cyclismag.com/article.php?sid=6000

This one above in particular shows the emergence of EPO and confirms the almost clean peleton in 1999... Thanks Lance for bringing the drugs back to the sport!

I think the charts been misinterpreted but my French sucks. Translation to English and Italian didn't help much. Since there was no test available in the 90's I'm confused and can't make out the source for the positives. If its confession based there was at least 2 in 99, Andreu and Roux and then we know LA samples tested positive later. I'm confused can you tell me the source of the positives?

 

[poupou]

What's even more interesting is the effects of the introduction of blood testing in 1997 and of the 2006 post-Puerto scare, and that, contrary to what many people had reported, 2010 hasn't been particularly clean (rather the opposite).

About 2010, the chart is reporting the number of riders above 410W but what we have showed in 2010 is that riders were not able to produce more than 410W at each stage as it was.

People were able to have (stupidly) a long run with riders, so the speed was less than "usual".

 

[JRTinMA]

btw i just noticed that in original french article there is no refference to epo,in fact theres no reference to drugs at all...it just compares different years of TdF

I think you just answered my question, thanks. I took the OPs word on it and could not figure it out when looking at the content.

 

[hrotha]

About 2010, the chart is reporting the number of riders above 410W but what we have showed in 2010 is that riders were not able to produce more than 410W at each stage as it was.
[chart]
[chart]

People were able to have (stupidly) a long run with riders, so the speed was less than "usual".

Thanks, that does put it in context.

 

[Le breton]

normalization

well since we dont know real weight of a rider using 78kg can be confusing and lead to mistakes (correct me if im wrong)

You are wrong
420 watts means for a 70 kg racer 6 watts/kg.
Riding side by side on a mountain pass with the 70 kg cyclist,
a 60 kg racer would need to produce just under 6,1 watts/kg while
an 80 kg cyclist would need to produce just a bit more than 5.92 watts/kg

since it is assumed than all 3 carry 8kg of equipment. Taking into account the air resistance reduces the differences.

 

[la.margna]

btw i just noticed that in original french article there is no refference to epo,in fact theres no reference to drugs at all...it just compares different years of TdF

Yes, the article does not refer at all to any doping it is just analysing power output in mountain stages by the top riders over all those Tour years. It is based on the model they have developed which seems to be reasonably accurate, evidenced by comparisons between their model calculations with Horner's SRM figures.

I should have added that any comments in my initial post are my personal view/analysis of the charts and information posted and do not contain any statement or conclusion from the article itself.

 

[Vonn Brinkman]

What's even more interesting is the effects of the introduction of blood testing in 1997 and of the 2006 post-Puerto scare, and that, contrary to what many people had reported, 2010 hasn't been particularly clean (rather the opposite).

Well look at 2009 and 2010.... suddenly they are as high as Armstrong era 2005...and coincidentally, Lance returned in 2009. What could this mean?

 

[saganftw]

Well look at 2009 and 2010.... suddenly they are as high as Armstrong era 2005...and coincidentally, Lance returned in 2009. What could this mean?

are you suggesting the presence of LA in peloton makes other cyclists dope?...i mean hes powerfull person but not that much

what i find interesting is that last year tour was very comparable to the mid90s,the golden age of doping...so are the cyclists so much better now or they dope the same way

 

[Squares]

are you suggesting the presence of LA in peloton makes other cyclists dope?...i mean hes powerfull person but not that much

Yes he is! LA is the most powerful person in the cycling world and just the thought of him made Contador and others have 410+ watt performances.

what i find interesting is that last year tour was very comparable to the mid90s,the golden age of doping...so are the cyclists so much better now or they dope the same way

From a scientific perspective, this type of analysis ignores so many thing just to make the case that people are doped (which they likely are).

It ignores changes to equipment like lighter weight carbon frames, lower rolling resistance wheels, a better selection of gears (11 speed vs 8), and targeted training. Before the dates shown, how many riders came in to the tour having burned their matches in the Giro and spring classics?

By the way, it also uses the average of 78 kg for the riders. Does anyone think Alberto Contador is 78 kg (172 pounds)???

 

[Cloxxki]

Yes he is! LA is the most powerful person in the cycling world and just the thought of him made Contador and others have 410+ watt performances.



From a scientific perspective, this type of analysis ignores so many thing just to make the case that people are doped (which they likely are).

It ignores changes to equipment like lighter weight carbon frames, lower rolling resistance wheels, a better selection of gears (11 speed vs 8), and targeted training. Before the dates shown, how many riders came in to the tour having burned their matches in the Giro and spring classics?

By the way, it also uses the average of 78 kg for the riders. Does anyone think Alberto Contador is 78 kg (172 pounds)???

You'll find that the past years, pro bikes have been 6.8-7.0kg. Outside this range, would be stupid. Helmets are a deviation (now mandatory). Shoes do get lighter I suppose, by grams.
The point is watts/kg. The most efficient rioder. Especially uphill, this data pretty dependable, as rolling resistance can be well calculated, and wind resistance is minimal due to the low speeds (rider build less of a factor).

 

[Polish]

..but then there was a guy who started pushing it to the limits again...

well, at least that was more or less what we did hear from a few riders, right?

On cyclismag there's an interesting article by Portoleau about watt development over all the Tours during the last 20 years. If you don't understand french or google translate messes it up, just scroll down and look at the charts. A few pretty interesting ones.

http://www.cyclismag.com/article.php?sid=6000

This one above in particular shows the emergence of EPO and confirms the almost clean peleton in 1999... Thanks Lance for bringing the drugs back to the sport!

The few months after festina that were clean was called "The Off Season".

But what happened in 1999 on the chart?
Did someone misplace the data?
Chain of custody issue maybe?

And what if Lance stopped using EPO when the test was developed pre-tour 2000?

Also, are Floyd's numbers included in 2006?

 

[Squares]

You'll find that the past years, pro bikes have been 6.8-7.0kg. Outside this range, would be stupid. Helmets are a deviation (now mandatory). Shoes do get lighter I suppose, by grams.
The point is watts/kg. The most efficient rioder. Especially uphill, this data pretty dependable, as rolling resistance can be well calculated, and wind resistance is minimal due to the low speeds (rider build less of a factor).

I agree, but the comparison is being made between 1998 (Festina) and 2009/10.

How many teams rode carbon bikes in 1998? Almost every rider used a carbon bike in the 2010 tour so bike weight is pretty close to the minimum now.

As for watts/kg it appears that the chart is made by taking the times and using a weight of 78 kg to calculate the watts required to achieve their time. If so, they are grossly overestimating the actual outpu for a 66 kg (145 pound) climber.

 

[lean mean &green]

I agree, but the comparison is being made between 1998 (Festina) and 2009/10.

How many teams rode carbon bikes in 1998? Almost every rider used a carbon bike in the 2010 tour so bike weight is pretty close to the minimum now.

As for watts/kg it appears that the chart is made by taking the times and using a weight of 78 kg to calculate the watts required to achieve their time. If so, they are grossly overestimating the actual outpu for a 66 kg (145 pound) climber.

again, won't matter after normalizing. also, i don't think these numbers have to be too precise to observe trending.

one factor that would influence these numbers would be the number of uphill finishes in a given year. i'm not motivated to back track thru the parcours but it's something to consider.

EDIT: another consideration would be how close was GC positioning? how deep or aggressive did athletes have to ride to hold on to 2nd, 3rd, etc position or were comfortable margins established that allowed for more conservative pacing?

 

[Cobblestones]

This analysis has been around forever and still a lot of people misunderstand.

What is calculated is essentially the power/kg per rider and then this number is multiplied by 78 kg. Just because Contador is listed as '420 W' in one graph, it doesn't mean he actually produced 420 W. More likely he produced actually less watts because he's lighter than 78 kg. The 78 kg is only used to convert W/kg consistently to W which normally wouldn't be a relevant number to compare riders because of their different weights.

There's some progress with bike weight, efficiency etc. but as I understand it, the relevant factors are taken into account, the irrelevant ones not, because they're irrelevant. It's a very good comparison between years, actually.

 

[ChrisE]

This analysis has been around forever and still a lot of people misunderstand.

What is calculated is essentially the power/kg per rider and then this number is multiplied by 78 kg. Just because Contador is listed as '420 W' in one graph, it doesn't mean he actually produced 420 W. More likely he produced actually less watts because he's lighter than 78 kg. The 78 kg is only used to convert W/kg consistently to W which normally wouldn't be a relevant number to compare riders because of their different weights. .

Huh? Using a generic weight of 78 kg is misleading so I am not really following you here. Pantani riding up a mountain at the same speed as Indurain should not equal the same watts/rider, but it does using this analysis. So, what is the point of it?

 

[L'arriviste]

Huh? Using a generic weight of 78 kg is misleading so I am not really following you here. Pantani riding up a mountain at the same speed as Indurain should not equal the same watts/rider, but it does using this analysis. So, what is the point of it?

Wow, you're back!

 

[DirtyWorks]

Question

Can the number of doping positives per Tour be related to the number of riders above the normalized watts?

2006 - landis
2007 - chicken

I don't know about the other the years.

 

[DirtyWorks]

Question

Can the number of doping positives per Tour be related to the number of riders above the normalized watts?

2006 - landis
2007 - chicken
2008 - Beltran, Ricco, ???

I don't know about the other the years.

 

[Cobblestones]

Huh? Using a generic weight of 78 kg is misleading so I am not really following you here. Pantani riding up a mountain at the same speed as Indurain should not equal the same watts/rider, but it does using this analysis. So, what is the point of it?

Yeah, that's the common confusion with this analysis. You're wrong, the weight of the rider is taken into account.

 

[Cloxxki]

When was the bike weight limit introduced? Before that time, bikes were lighter in the mountains. Carbon or not.
I can build you a steel frame+fork bike with decade old technology of around 5-6kg. And it won't sukk.

 

[ChrisE]

Yeah, that's the common confusion with this analysis. You're wrong, the weight of the rider is taken into account.

After rereading your post closely I understand now. Thanks for the heads up. But, the graph would be just as useful if they plotted w/kg. Why the multipication with the bogus weight? It skews the numbers upward....why would anybody want to do that?

What is surprising is the low numbers 99-2001. According to FL after this time blood doping came to the forefront and EPO was used less, if at all. I am surprised they are so low, especially in 2001 when LA was out of this world.

Look at the amount of times in 2003....I can only think of one outstanding performance in that tour and that was on Luz Arduden, and that was after his fall which costs alot of time and thus should cause a lower number.

This chart just seems suspicious to me, and I wish I knew it's basis better.